About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 96 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none. commissioner antonini. >> move to move items one and two to the date proposed and item 15 to january 17, 2013. >> second. >> >> on that motion to continue commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> that passes seven to zero will will place you under the consent calendar. all items constitute the consent calendar considered routine by the pla
fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 20
. >> commissioner antonini. >> my sediments are the same particularly with january 31 because we're off on the third and i realize it's not the holiday but i know staff has to prepare and the first would cut into their preparation for having a hearing on january 3 but i think we should add the 31 so we have four in that month. i don't think if it doesn't fall on the day that we meet we shouldn't take it off with the exception of the first day of chanukkah was on the five of december and i think we would have that off because i think the holiday is celebrated over a period of days but the first day is the most important and that is up to the discretion of the commissioners and i'm not sure where we could add anything back because we have the holiday at the end of december and early january, so we might only have two hearings in december of this year. >> commissioner board. yeah, i think we want to be. >> >> respectful of the holidays that fall within that window. i would say we meet more often than the board of supervisors in terms they have weekly meetings and the last meeting is the 11 and we have
. >> seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> well i'm certainly fine with hearing it want to but if we can't there is always a chance that we can be continued if we don't hear it at all tonight there is no chance that it will be resolved tonight and so that is up to the project sponsors and others involved if they want to go through with it. >> one option is we could take i guess you have to call the item and say public comment and say that is the only other option i think we have and but, i understand people's desire who have been waiting here all day and unfortunately that has happened on occasion and you know, there is unfortunately not a certainty of a particular time when a project is heard, i do encourage you may not know this but i do encourage members of public, we are televised and you can find us on s f governor to have been.com come and i'll tell you to follow the items and you cannot predict the length of the items but you can see the progression a little bit because i know it's hard to give up an entire day the question that i have
that we have right now. last week, commissioner antonini had stated when you add something, you want to take it back. i thought that was a well-spoken remark and that should be applied to this particular new appraisal. also i know that we talked about the building of this home but i also think that we're concerned about the bottom of the hill. we have a foundation that right adjacent to the -- if that's demolished i think there should be some consideration to the demolishment and soundness of the concrete next to our home. thank you for listening to my concerns. >> president fong: thank you. next speaker please. >> mr. president and commissioners, my name is jill artolla, and i side at 4008, my husband and i are native san franciscans and have owned our home for more than 30 years. we look forward to living there for a long time as well. i do not recognize many of the people that stood as our neighbors either. i am outside, gardening very often. we are concerned about the loss of light and view of open space after this large home is built. we would like to encourage you to reduce its
commissioners have to say. >> president fong: commissioner antonini svttledz i know a couple -- >> commissionecouple -- >> commissioner antonini: a couple of speakers spoke about soundness during the construction process. this is an issue that has to do with department of building inspection. the project sponsor, in this sort of building, is responsible to make sure the shoring is adequate, that no damage is done to any of the adjacent properties. and that is not really an issue that we have control over here. it's something that needs to be taken up with during the permitting process. and it routinely is. and that would be mandatory that shoring be adequate and there be no adverse effects on adjacent properties from the excavation or anything else that's being done. in regards to the project itself, i think it's a very well-done. the house is extremely contextural, if you look at the renderings of the new building it fits in beautifully with the homes on the street, that unfortunately doesn't happen enough, and i think it's an example what can be done architecturally to make a home look like
: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so moved that p
. >> commissioner antonini. >> i think aside from the parking which i spoke to, the rest of the legislation is well written and it's well done. but i won't be able to support it based upon that part of it. >> commissioners, on the motion to adopt a resolution recommending with modifications as proposed by staff, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. >> the commission is going to take a short break and we will come back. >>please stand by; meeting in recess like to welcome everybody back to san francisco's planning commission hearing for november 29, 2012. i'd like to remind members investment audience to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner, we left off under your regular calendar for the benefit of the public item 15 has been continued which places you under item 16, case no. 2003.0527u, 1000 16th street (dagge
carefully listen to. >> commissioner antonini, you made a motion, a loose motion at that. is there a second? >> i'll try to capture it if i can. >> okay. commissioner wu will second. so, the motion, if i can try to capture it, is to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the board of supervisors with a strong request to engage -- >> no, no, no. >> let me restate it if i can, mr. ionin. we are asking the supervisor to engage the public for additional input and then create a third draft that takes into consideration their input as well as those comments of ours with specific reference to the trigger date and the period of time during which the appeals could occur. >> okay. this is a completely different motion. it was in case the supervisor chooses to move forward. so, we're disregarding the fact that the supervisor can move forward on the legislation and we're going to draft a new resolution simply requesting -- >> it's understood that if he decides to move forward without taking into consideration, that's his province because it's an administrative action. >> okay, my apologies. i misu
? okay. seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> i have a question, ms. hayward, first, for the modifications. if i'm reading this right, the legislation calls for an initial filing by all post secondary institutions that provide student housing with an inventory of all their existing housing on and off campus. is that correct? >> [speaker not understood], yes. the legislation requires an annual report to be filed by all institutions, yes, or people who control student hosing. >> right. but then i thought i heard with your modification would be the annual report would not be as extensive as it was. they'd only have to file a paper saying that there were no changes. is that what you're proposing? >> just to clarify, the department's recommendation is slightly different from what [speaker not understood] just explained. the department's recommendation is that there be an initial report provided by all institutionses and operatorses of student housing. subsequent to that initial report, our recommendation is that a report -- a report only be filed when
, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i'm very much in favor of this proposal and i also live in the neighborhood in west side -- west lakeside village. i'm sorry, west portal frequently. and there are a lot of vacancies. and this particular space is tiny. its frontage is 11-1/2 feet. and, so, it's a very hard thing to fill. and we are losing businesses partly because of what's happening online and i hope that doesn't continue because, you know, i don't shop online and i discourage other people from doing it because it just knocks out jobs for people in retail places. but until we have that turn around, there is going to be this problem with trying to get retail to be vital and there's lots of other spaces. the other thing that impresses me, they're taking 545 feet of their space and turning it into a community room. and the argument that the merchants will go back to meeting and squat and gobble and rebuilt, which will be quite a while. begs a question. a lot of meetings you have, you don't necessarily want to include food and drink also. i go
that we're contemplating? great. commissioner antonini, i would move to adopt? >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, as you know, there is a statewide requirement to provide housing for all income levels and in particular county or cities. but it does not necessarily have to be inclusionary housing. i mean, you can use other methods of doing it. from what i understand, and maybe you could comment on other jurisdictions within the bay area? what do they do? if they use inclusionary, what sort of percentages of ami are they using for their rental and housing or ownership units? are they similar to ours? are they lower percentages? well, there is an ami level and there is also the 15% on-site and 20% offsite? >> i'm afraid i can't comment on that. i am not familiar with inclusionary programs in other jurisdictions. >> that is a problem for me, because when i am asked to vote on this, i have to know what other places are doing and i think you are doing a good job, but i don't think i can support it at that point, because i really don't have all the information. i
, public comment is closed >>> commissioner antonini. >> thank you, i had a couple of questions on the memo. and i am led to believe when i first saw this, i thought it was the entire program. but this is only a memo dealing with the resale of existing ownership units and then dealing with the other entities here. for example, as i recall unless it's changed, your for-sale ownership units are 100 ami and it can be up to 120 in some instances, but i believe it's always been at 100 ami has been the price for-sale units. and then the rental units at 60 ami? >> that is correct, but there has been adjustment. there are two ami tables that we use in san francisco. there is a tri-county, or three county ami table. at one point the board of supervisors directed us to use a san francisco-specific table and given the relative wealth of our adjacent counties to the south and north, san francisco's ami is about 10% lower than the tri-county ami. so san francisco -- 100% ami is equivalent to 90% in san francisco and that is called out here. similarly on the rental side, it coordinates to
to commissioners. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. i guess the first issue which was raised on a number of occasions is why this is before us? maybe mr. sanchez could tell us the reason why this new project is before us. >> thank you. so first, this is just an informational item. this is not an action item and there is not a project before you to approve or disprove, but the planning code states no application proposing an amendment, conditional use or variance, the same or substantially the same as that which was disapproved shall be resnit smieed or reconsidered by the planning commission or zoning administrator within a period of one year of effective action upon the earlier application this. is where the one-year bar has been raised and the planning code says you cannot submit the same or substantially the same project. it's a planning code provision and i reviewed the plans submitted and found it's not substantially the same, so it can come before you within the year. it's fully within your discretion when you have the hearing on that item and i don't know when that date would
. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have some questions on the legislation. i guess the first one has to do with the changes from parking. now, we're talking about residential parking or commercial parking? * >> i believe it changes the -- all to maximum parking rather than minimum parking in the new ncd. >> yeah, but it depends which it is and what the maximums are. >> they're the standard found in section 151. so, all the other districts that have had this done to them have maximum parking controls. i'm sorry, i don't have that section of the code in front of me for the parking, though. >> seems to me it would be related more to the commercial establishments that front divisadero street as opposed to somebody's residential building that might be built new. but that's important to know. well, while you're looking at that, i'll raise my other question. in terms of second and third floor use, it specified philanthropic and administrative, but it didn't mention just general office. why wouldn't you be able to just have, you know, an insurance agency upstairs or something like that? i do
portion is closed. opening up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> i think this is an excellent project for a lot of reasons that have already been brought up. pointed out the siting in such a way to allow access to oscar park, allow light and air into a whole area of the city. i think that's extremely well done. there was one comment made by a commenter that they don't see the cumulative appearance, but architect has done a very good job of our materials put on the screen and showing what the skyline would look like with all the buildings in place that are those that we know of are either already entitled or are planned to be entitled in the future. and i think that answers a lot of the questions about what the cumulative effect of all the buildings in the area will be. so, i think this is a wonderful project and there will probably be in other commissioners with some comments, but i'm happy to move approval for the 309 compliance, which i believe is what's before us. >> is that a motion? >> that is a motion. >> i'll second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> well, never mind. >> commi
would be. >> well, let me think about it. go ahead. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. so, commissioner sugaya, would you be interested in another hearing possibly? [laughter] >> let me put forth -- >> really. >> let me put forth what my idea would be and let's see if it has support. and parenthetically, there are some additions of things in this. i i understand the negative declarations now would have to be appealed to us first, which was not necessarily the case. so, there's more process added in some of these. i would move that we recommend to the supervisor support, but with these modifications. longer, but clear, clear appeal periods, not to exceed three months from whatever we determine to be the date of the first complete approval document. and what i mean by that is something that you can begin to build on. if you get a plumbing permit, if you get, you know, the very first permit that you're going to be building something that really doesn't give the public much of an input as to what you're going to build. but if you have something that has the plans together and
, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. as a west side resident, i drive through here frequently. when i'm coming across town, i think this is a very good project and it starts to help us to meet some of the housing demand in a very small way. and we are limited in the number of sites we have available, but i've talked to tim colin in the past about taking a trip. there are some, there are some opportunity sites and if you say you're losing your open space, all you have to do is look at the rendering across the street that shows a huge area on the other side of garden side where there is nothing built. and even if some additional structures were ever built there, you've got the whole area of twin peaks that is adjacent to twin peaks boulevard and garden side and other streets that are open space. and, so, i think this has been very well done. as was pointed out, there is a 19-foot wide space where the steps are and a fairly, more generous space than was the case with the other developments on the other side. and, so, i think that -- and it does provide som
the project as proposed. * >> commissioner antonini. >> i just wanted to ask one other question, maybe for ms. barkley, i guess, would probably be the best speaking for project sponsors. the other part of the picture was to take part of that deck and turn it into a skylight on the other section without moving the family room. would that have an adverse effect on your project? >>> first of all, we are talking about there are five, what they are basically talking about -- now we're talking about moving the privacy screen that they asked for in the five feet and there is a problem about how you support that going up when you're moving it into the middle of the deck instead of following basically the exterior because you're going to have to anchor that because it doesn't have any roof. and then in addition to that, in the front at the very end, actually, facing the backyard, we have created a -- to address the privacy concern, we have now created a fairly deep planter area. so, there are actually two railings in that area that run right about the property line is 30 inches, then going in three fe
element. commissioner antonini. >> in terms of open space, i mean, not going back to the distant past, but telegraph and russian hills were very densely built, but most people feel they're quite attractive and appropriate places to live and we were able to capture the top of telegraph hill as an open space. but the sides of the hills were pretty densely built and i'm not saying we should do that entirely on twin peaks, but, you know, i think where this opportunity presents itself to build a building which will be probably architecturally the best up there, i think that we should do it and i would support the project. >> commissioner sugaya. >> following the logic of building an open space, if there weren't a garden there now and it was just what is being characterized as this particular open space, we would be approving apartment projects up and down the [speaker not understood] steps. >> commissioners, there is a motion to not take dr and approve. commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> [speaker not understood]. >> and commission president fong? >> so moved, c
antonini. >> thank you. actually, was able to go out there and see the site a little bit in the past, but i did have a question maybe for ms. barkley. i guess, i'm looking at the two plans next to each other. if i am correct, there are no changes that are being proposed by d-r requestor to the lower two floors. it's only the upper floor -- >> that's correct. >> and i guess everyone is agreed upon the light gray color and the translucent windows to, you know, minimize the amount of darkness on that area. and i think -- >>> that is already established. >> all i'm seeing here is the family room being moved to the sort of more to the center and taking up part of the open roof that would be to the east side if my direction is complete. and they're claiming this family room is larger in the version, the janet campbell version than the other version. i haven't quite been able to figure that out and they're putting a couple skylights in that area. >>> first of all, i think the first thing is that the owners wanted to live certain way and they have designed this building so that it accommodates not
jobs for people and a great product. >> commissioner antonini. >>> i appreciate the story that mr. hansen told us about his grandfather andy anderson and remind me about stories from my grasped father how businesses were started by someone who gained all of this knowledge on the job and then eventually took over the business and started his or her own business and one thing that was shared with me earlier is the name royal motors came from the type writer where mr. hansen was typing his first respondence and since it was a royal type retire, he decided to use the royal name and so great story and years ago i'm happy to hear there is a new auto row on south of van nest and we louvre the 20 or 30 p v r jobs that this particular auto related business is going to create ask perhaps in time, will start to rethink our attitude about cars and be accepting about the fact that people have cars and provide jobs for many of our citizen and is they might as well buy them here and as them services in san francisco. >> commissioner sag guya. >>> yes, i have always wandered, i guess for a lo
. >> commissioner antonini? >> but to that end, most of what was pointed out as things under discussion by the neighborhood were the massing and the size of the building, and to some degree the architectural appearance of the building, and so i think that certainly is useful to use our time well and to kind of weigh in on what is being presented to us. not that we're talking about any kind of approval process at this time. we're just sort of trying to indicate our feelings and outreach to the neighborhood. and to the project sponsor to continue to work together. and i don't believe this was -- i don't think this is going public to private. this was a privately-owned, owned by a church and i consider that to be a private entity and it continues to be private. so i don't feel that it's moving in that direction. >> next item, please. >> commissioners, that will place you under "general comment period" not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time members of public will address those items within the subject matter of the commission except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your o
comment portion is closed. opening it up to commissioners for questions, commissioner antonini? >> thank you. this is a very interesting proposal and i certainly can identify with it. i have a granddaughter who is looking for preschool in september and a few more on the way from what i understand. [ laughter ]. so it's an issue that affects all of us. there was some commentary about the other facilities that are available. and part of our packet includes a list of the various child-care facilities or preschools in the neighborhood or adjoining neighborhoods. but many of these are means of income tests. so people would not qualify if their income were higher than a certain level, or many of them closed at 2:30 and don't include a full days that one does. so i think there is no question that there is a need. and they would be principaled permitted at 15 or below and they are only going for five more children, which is why they are before us today. so i think there is a lot of potential for this. and i agree that i really like the university mound in the district. i know it very well ha
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 96 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)